SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4485, 14 July 1877, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS,

Friday, July 13. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston and a Special -Jury.) MAYST.AfOniTTt.

Martiia Mary Harris (4 ill Roid was in dieted for that she did at Dunedin, on May 16, kill and slay one Margaret M ‘lntyre ; aud she was further indicted upon the coroner’s wan aat for the same offence. She pleaded not guilty. Mr C. B. Haggitfc prosecuted for the frown ; Mr Stout, with him Mr Dcnniston. defended.

Mr Stout had to a r k the Jury to do in this case what, happily for this town, it was not generally necessary to request, aud that way to dispossess their minds entirely of re ports which had hen industriously cirou’ated throughout the community. He need not mention these remarks and n ports—m w ones were .-.printing up every day. One was that Mrs Reid had Jolted, which gave them a sample of the rumor* which had been circulate 1 in regard to this cv-e. Their duty was not to be guided by feeling, but by evidence. All other things they must dismiss from their mind:-. The Crown Prosecutor had said that they were t j exorcise their common sense : that whenever facts were wanting they were to use what the learned e umye! called common sense. He quoted fro n (leorge Elliott to show that it was • asior to make sentences and to indulge in speculations than to examine a plain thing and to give one’s impression of it as he saw it. They bad nothing to do with the moral aspect of the case, hut simply to see whether the evidence bore out the hypothesis put forward by the Crown. The Crown had

put four questions, and he was content that they should be put to the Jury : “ First, Was the death of this girl caused by improper food and insuffic : ent lodging ? Second, Was the girl unable to leave the place where she Mas ? Third, Did her inability to leave result from fear of the prisoner ? Fourth, Was she so under the restraint of the prisoner as to be deprived of her own freewill ?”

His Honor intimated that he could not allow it to go the jury that the result of the case depended upon these four questions.

MrFtout remarked that the Crown had shifted its ground. He would dispose of these four questions first. His Honor would tell the jury, as regarded the absence of proper nutrition, that as far as he could see there was, before the last scene of all, nothing to show that the deceased could not have run away if she liked —that is to say, for a few days before her death. Mr Stout remarked that that relieved him of a great deal. His Honor would direct that up to a few days before the death of the deceased there was nothing to show that there was any domination exercised over the deceased so as to cause her to remain in Mrs Reid’s employment. That, he submitted, disposed of the theory which the Crown set up in the opening statement, and, he contended, of the case entirely. Whatever beliefs they might have, or whatever inferences they might have, he made this bold statement: That on the evidence they could not answer yes as regarded the prisoner. The medical evidence showed that the deceased died because of having no food to assimilate, but that did not prove that the accused withheld food from her. The very root of the case failed, because, looking at the case not from outside feeling—not from private feeling—but from the facts before them, there was no evidence that food had been withheld. He defied the Crown to show a single statement in which this m dn essential fact had been prove n Mr Haggltt: The medical testimony. Mr Stout: Read the medical testimony. The jury has no business to come here to speculate as to the case. They did not come here to speculate and decide as to reasons. They came here to deal with the evidence. The question was whether the theory of the Crown was supported on evidence, and he put it to them boldly that there was nothing to prove it. Mr Stout then replied to the theory that the deceased was so under the domination of prisoner that she was unable to leave. Fie commented on the evidence of various witnesses, whom he would not accuse of wilful one-sidedness, but argued that they were unanimously prejudiced against the prisoner. Next, as to the remaining point—the treatment of the girl on the Tuesday night. That was the only thing upon which the Crown could found an argument. They had no right to assume that the congestion of the lungs was caused by the cold in the room in which the deceased had been placed. He instanced the girl’s having been seen outside, thinly clad, to show that congestion of the lungs might have begun elsewhere than in the room. He then criticised the Crown’s mode of dealing with the case, characterising it as an exploring expedition for probabilities. He did not appeal to the emotions of the jury. He asked them to throw feelings aside, and he rested his case on the broad ground that having gone over all the different theories set up by the Crown, that whatever beliefs the jury might have, whatever misgivings they might entertain, there was nothing in the evidence upon which they could bring in the prisoner guilty. His Honor, in summing up, commenced by saying that no doubt the duty which the jury bad to perform was a very important one, both as regarded society generally aud the prisoner at the bar —a duty of much responsibility, and not without difficulty. Manslaughter might be committed not only by acts done by the party accused, but, under certain circumstances, by the omission of the performance of a duty. There were certain circumstances under which a person might be chargeable as guilty of murder or of manslaughter when the act had not been caused by some act committed by the party charged, but by the omission of the performance of some duty. In the course of the case a good deal of discussion had arisen between counsel and Court as to the proper mode in which he could direct the jury. He had come to the conclusion, but not without considerable difficulty, that there was to meet at least a case of omission, which he ought to allow to go to the jury in order that the prisoner might be tried for manslaughter. A person had to perform the duty of providing food and shelter under the contract of service, or in the relation of a parent or master, and under such contract there might be good ground for finding a person who causes death by an omission to be guilty of manslaughter. Yet that ruling was subject to this modification—that if the person killed had full possession of her senses and an exercise of her free will, the law will not hold the master responsible for omitting to perform the duty of providing sufficient food and shelter. This modification of the ruling would be best illustrated by his stating wliat fie ruling of the Court was in the case of “ The Queen v. Charlotte Smith,” The principle laid fiown there was that whore a master neglected to provide food and lodging for a servant in such a state of body and mind as to be helpless and unable to take care of himself, or was in the donruion or restraint of the master, and unable to withdraw himself from the master's control or service, death was caused or accelerated bj neglect, the master was guilty of manslaughter Now, on the application of the principle of this case to the circumstances of the present one, he had come to the conclusion that he was bound to direct them, rs a matter of law, cn tli'3 aspect cf the case —that there was not _ evidence enough before them to establish the charge cf manslaughter in this respect; that is,"in respect of starvation which had actually caused death. He need not enlarge further on that point, lie gave them that direction on his own responsibility. There was no evidence that the deceased could not exercise her free will. There was evidence to the contrary, as shown by the fact that she could communicate with tradesmen and go out and gather sticks. He could not say that there was, in point of law, sufficient positive evidence that would justify them in finding the prisoner guilty on that ground, and on that ground only. Starvation being the primary cause of death, the ju y would have to diieet <h ir attention to the subsequent events in respect of the conduct of Mrs Reid to the girl shortly before death toook place. There were two distinct kind of causes in which both the hum] Leal men agreed, and lie thought that the jury would have but very little doubt of the propriety of accepting the medical evidence—that these causes not only might, but must, have accelerated the death of'the emaciated and starved girl. Now, in point of law, as far as the technical character of the evidence went, the acceleration of the death of a fellow creature by any space of time, however trilling, even by one hour only, was a criminal offence it constituted oit'ac r manslaughter or murder. It w a noi for them to consider the moral gravity of the offence nor were they to judge of the case from the view they might take of the moral c induct of the woman at the bar. She might have acted with grert inhumanity, and yet, according to the

law he had f onted out, she might not be criminally guilty. The two acts, it seemed to him, that the prosecution could most rely on were: The one connected with the bruises and external injuries which the medical evidence said must have accelerated death j and the other was the treatment of the girl after she was acknowledged to be ill and suffering from diarrhoea, according to Mrs Reid’s own showing. If death was accelerated by blows, and those were inflicted by the mistress, the case would be one of manslaughter. And again, after the girl was so debilitated that she had no strength or power of will to go away-if, after that state had been arrived at, her mistress put her into a cold room, with insufficient covering under the circumstances, showing that she was careless or reckless whether the girl would die or not, and the exposure in that manner accelerated death, then they would take it from him that that would amount to mantrl lughter. He would repeat it once more, as these were the turning points. If death was accelerated by blows or wounds which had been inflicted by the mistress, the case was one of manslaughter. Secondly, if the girl had become so debilitated that she had not strength of body or power of will to go away—if, in that state of things, her mistress put her into a cold room with insufficient covering, under circumstances showing that she was careless or reckless whether the girl died or not, and exposure in that room accelerated death, that would be manslaughter. Now, with regard to the first question —the question of evidence of the existence of abrasions or bruises—they had it sworn distinctly, as he und rsbood it, by the evidence of both medical meu, that these wounds accelerated i if they did not produce it. In fact, one wound on the head might have produced death i f itself, Eut the real question of difficulty was whether there was sufficient evidence to the minds of the jury to show that these injuries were inflicted by Mrs Reid. And he thought that there was some such evidence, and that he should allow the case to go to them on the subject that these injuries wereinflicbed by Mrsßeid, the woman at the bar. Now, it was perfectly true that when you charged a man with one offence you were not ordinarily at liberty to give evidence that he had committed an offence before, for the purpose of showing that he committed another. But in this case there were circumstances which might fairly be taken as part of the whole comse of treatment, and might be used for the purpose of explaining otherwise equivocal action on the part of the prisoner. Now there was, perhaps, no direct evidence that anyone of these wounds or abrasions was seen to have been inflicted by the prisoner upon the deceased, because, as he understood the case, the acts of violence adduced, and which took place at various times, were considerably anterior to the period of death. And, inasmuch as the bruises, abrasions, and violence which caused them, appeared from the medical testimony to have been inflicted very shortly before death, it would appear that there was no direct evidence of the infliction of any of them by the prisoner. The question then would be, was there such circumstantial evidence as would justify them in coming to a conclusion on the subject? He then spoke t > show that it was highly improbable that the wounds had been self-inflicted. There was a suggestion—one which emanated from Mrs Reid herself—that the braises were accidentally caused by the girl tumbling about in a fit. The medical evidence told them that there were some of the wounds, and all the more serious wounds, which could not have been so produced, or at all events there was a very great improbability . in there having been so inflicted. Common r sense would tell the jury that an accident *1 which inflicted bruises on one place could not on another. That one which inflicted bruises on the face would not inflict damage on the top of the head. Against the suggestion made by the prisoner, that the wounds were the results of fits, they had evidence that the girl was not subject to fits, and medical evidence that tumbling about was not an indication of fits. There was this, that the previous treatment of the girl by her mistress, though it might not make her criminally responsible as regarded starvation, tended to show that the conduct of the mistress generally towards the deceased was not such as would create any great improbability that she might have used violence towards her. He did not think that the evidence could be shared further than that it removed the presumption of improbability that the mistress used violence towards tbe girl. If the mistress did not inflict the injuries herself, by whom were they inflicted ? One wound was accounted for by the boy striking the deceased with a stick. Some of the scratches and bruises might have been caused by her dragging about the wood. Buthowcame these serious wounds, which, all taken together, in a high degree of probability accelerated the death of the unfortunate girl. Ho would suggest to them that if it were their duty to see that, if this were necessary in order to convict the woman at the bar, they must see that the prosecution had made out its case with reasonable certainty—that they had given the very best evidence, and upon which the jury could safely rely’. If the jury were satisfied with the medical testimony, that such bruises occurring on the girl, especially in the condition in which she unquestionably was shortly before death, and if the jury were satisfied that they were inflicted by the prisoner, it was their duty to find her guilty of manslaughter. Mr Stout: Your Honor, there are two circumstances in connection with the fits. First, Edith Reid said that on the morning of the day of tbe girl’s death, while she was with her mother in the bedroom, she heard a noise. In the second place, Mrs Brooks said that when she was called in, the girl’s eyes looked as if she had been in a fit. The Judge ; That is jnst a woman’s idea. They account for anything abnormal by putting it down as a fit. You are quite right to call attoution to the matter, but I do not think the jury will attach much importance to it. They now came to the last portion of the case—that in which, taking it altogether, there was more evidence. Taking the condition of the girl as it was admitted on all bauds to have been at tbe end of the week proceeding her death—a girl emaciated, slovenly, miserable-looking, ill-clad, dragging herself about. Taking her in that condition, assuming the truth of a very c msiderable portion of what Mrs Re'd herself said ; let them test tbe matter. Yet, knowing as Mrs Reid said that she did, that deceased was suffering from diarrbcea, what took place in the servant’s room before the removal of deceased into the children’s playroom on Tuesday? They had the account of Mrs Reid, which showed that tho deceased had had at times to take to her bed very ill and very muck reduced. Who took her iuto that room ?—Mrs Reid took her and brought her in. They would find clearly that it was nob a voluntary act on the part of the girl that she went iuto that ro m. tShe was taken ill - suffering from diarrhoea —and put on a mattrass with the quantity of clothes described. It was suggested that Mrs Reid had a pane of glass out in her children’s room. She surely had seme room with a fireplace had some better room. Was it suggested that, because the deceased was a servant girl, that was good enough for her ? Surely that could not be suggested a room with two panes of glass out. It i would be advanced that treatment said to '

be that of the children was good enough for the servant. Mast not any mother of children have known that snch treatment would expose an invalid to great danger! That was a point for the jury to consider. Bat he would tell them, as a point of law, that if Mrs Reid acted recklessly and carelessly, and the result, in their opinion, aco alerated death, she was to be held guilty of manslaughter. Now, about the question of bias, he did not think it necessary to say much. He did not think that there was any grounds for the suggestion that the witnesses had shown undue bias. If then they had to say whether the exposure of the girl was the voluntary act of Mrs Reid—and it appeared that it was—was it an act from which the girl could have escaped? Mrs Reid herself showed that the girl was not in a position to do so. Was that done recklessly and carelessly ? Did the jury believe that Mrs Reid could believe that the girl would be as safe and well, and as likely to recover exposed as as she was in tbat room as if she had paid a reasonable amount of attention to her, and had taken more care to protect her against cold? If they really thought that she honestly believed and thought that it would do her no harm, they would have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that she was not reckless and careless, but considering well the circumstances that the girl had become emaciated from want of food in that woman’s house, that she had treated her, to say the least, with severity, if their opinion was that her conduct was reckless, and if they adopted the medical evidence, ho thought that they would be bound to find her guilty, but if they had a reasonable doubt one way or the other, they should acquit her. [His Honor here read extracts from prisoner’s depositions.] Mr Stout: It is quite nncontradicted that the gill miuht have had plenty of clothing during the night—there is no proof of what clothing she had during the night. His Honor: I don’t core whether it was at day or night that she had scanty covering.

The jury retired abont 9 o’clock to consider their verdict, and at 11.30 were sent for.

The Foreman ; Will yonr Honor be good enough to repeat youi| directions upon the pueation of acceleration of death at the time the deceased ceased to be a free agent ? His Honor said that if the girl was put into the room by Mrs Reid and she not an assenting party, and the effect was to accelerate death, then he considered it an act for which Mrs Reid was responsible in law, and they might find her guilty of manslaughter. Bat if the act was the girl's own, and she was willing to go into the place, then no doubt Mrs Reid would not be responsible. 1 n other words, if she were put in by Mrs Reid and did not go in of her own accord, the prisoner would be responsible.

The Foreman ; Was she sensible on the afternoon of Tuesday, according to your Honor’s direction ? His Honor : Who is to tell us ? We have no one te do so except Mrs Reid and the little girl Edith. What Mrs Reid said in hj r depositions cannot be taken as evidence on her behalf, though it may be used as evidence against her. The Foreman said that there was no prospect of the jury agreeing either that night or the next day. His Honor then said that he would retire, but if the jury agreed during the night he would come and receive their verdict. But so far he did not feel justified in ordering them any refreshment.

Saturday, July 14. At five minutes past nine o’clock this morning the jury came into Court and stated that they were unable to agree. Hia Honor: Is there no likelihood of your agreeing upon a verdict ? The Foreman; Not one single probability, your Honor,

His Honor : It is a surprising thing that you cannot bring in a verdict—l thought I put the case plainly enough before you. Power is given by the Legislature to a judge to discharge a jury if he thinks fit after their being locked up for twelve hours ; but this is a power which, I think, should be wielded with very great caution, as if it once becomes known that a judge will discharge a jury in the event of their not agreeing after being locked up for twelve hours, it may tend to defeat justice in future cases, for a few obstinate men may hold out and prevent a verdict. However, this is a special jury, and as the foreman states there is no possibility of your agreeing, I will consider for a few moments what course I shall take. There is more onus thrown on the Court than I feel inclined lo take on my own responsibility by discharging you without a verdict and ordering a new trial. Is there no chance of those who are in the minority giving way to the feeling of the majority ? Do not you think it probable that you may come to some decision if you retire again ? Some members of the jury having consulted together, the Foreman said: We shou’d like, your Honor, to have another quarter of an hour or twenty minutes to consider further.

His Honor ; Very well. The jury consequently aga'n retired at twenty minutes past nine. In twenty minutes’ time they again came into Court, anil the Foreman intimated that they had agreed upon a verdict of “ Not Guilty.” His Honor : Gentlemen—l trust that this will be the last time that you will have to sit upon such an unpleasant case. I hope that this case will be a warning to the community at large. Prisoner at the bar, you are discharged.